Mail wins landmark legal battle as judge throws out Prince Harry claims

The Daily Mail has declared a major victory for press freedom after the High Court dismissed every claim brought against its publisher by Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants.

In a sweeping judgment running to more than 400 pages, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected all allegations against Associated Newspapers, describing the evidence presented by the claimants as insufficient to support their case. The ruling ends one of the biggest legal battles ever faced by the newspaper group and is already being hailed by supporters as a defining moment for Britain's free press.

Judge rejects every allegation

The case centred on claims that journalists working for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday had used unlawful information-gathering methods over many years.

After an 11-week hearing, the court dismissed every claim.

The judgment praised a number of Mail journalists as "honest" and "impressive" witnesses, while noting that the claimants had produced limited direct evidence. A key witness, former private investigator Gavin Burrows, withdrew earlier allegations before the trial concluded, significantly weakening the case.

Victory for press freedom

Associated Newspapers argues the ruling is about far more than one legal dispute.

Editors say the decision protects the right of newspapers to investigate powerful public figures without fear of politically motivated legal campaigns designed to silence reporting.

Supporters believe the judgment strengthens investigative journalism at a time when traditional media faces mounting legal and financial pressure.

Prince Harry's campaign suffers major setback

The ruling represents one of the biggest defeats yet in Prince Harry's long-running campaign against sections of the British media.

While the Duke of Sussex has previously won legal actions against other newspaper groups, his claims against the Daily Mail failed entirely.

Following the judgment, Harry criticised the decision, calling it an "obvious whitewash", while campaign group Hacked Off renewed calls for another public inquiry into press standards.

Paul Dacre vindicated

The judgment is also seen as a personal vindication for former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who had been accused of misleading the Leveson Inquiry over allegations of phone hacking.

The judge found no evidence to support those accusations.

Claims brought by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, were also dismissed.

The battle isn't over

Although the legal victory is comprehensive, few believe the wider fight over Britain's press is finished.

Campaigners continue to push for tighter regulation of newspapers, while supporters of a free press argue further restrictions would damage investigative journalism and weaken public scrutiny of those in power.

For the Daily Mail, this judgment closes one of its most expensive legal battles. But as debates over privacy, media accountability and free speech continue, the wider political and legal conflict surrounding Britain's press is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

SOURCE

Haha Harry is such a loser.

Typical woke lefty trying to shut down free speech so he can continue with his hypocritical lifestyle without scrutiny and accountability.

Just go back to Cali, Ginge. Because cringe the instagram loving b wife is waiting for you with her vocal fry, her skanky complexion and her failed business.

MY HUUSSBBAAANNNND!

Bon voyage.

The ginger sourpuss having a hissyfit because it correctly didn't go his way. Harry and that loud-mouthed "Baroness" should face contempt of court charges with their sneering and deluded self-righteous statements.

The woke lefty elites find the truth inconvenient, unwanted, and unhelpful to their agendas, narratives, attempts at social engineering and can only sneer and fume when called out with reality. A good outcome for a free press found to be operating legally and freely despite frivolous and flimsy allegations from those who want state control oversight of a toothless press core. Fate, it seems, does indeed have a sense of humour.

I assume all the royal family are rightists as they insist on having unearned power and wealth. The monarchy is built on hereditary privilege, social hierarchy, and historical continuity, which are core tenets of conservative ideology. Charles has always been wishy washy but his father was definitely not.

The Daily Mail is rightist (its cofounder Harold Harmsworth (Lord Rothermere) strongly supported Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, and European fascism during the 1930s.).

The Daily Mail's history of unreliability, fabrication, and plagiarism prompted editors on Wikipedia to ban it as a generally unreliable source.

While I don't particularly like the British royal family, the Daily Mail is a lot worse.

Thats made my day. Now I wonder just how many millions will he have to pay before he slithers off back to Trumpland

Perhaps the entitled prat will finally get the hint.

He's a nobody a has been all this crap about him wanting armed police protection its all in his mind nobody gives a flying f**k about him or wants him.

It would have been better if it wasn't the Daily Mail that won though.

Nicklin was also the same judge who presided over the Tommy Robinson - Jamal Hijazi libel case where he dismissed all TR's numerous witnesses including students and teachers at the school as having lied, even when they were secretly recorded on camera saying they had taken money from the council to be silenced on the matter.

Harry's court blow leaves California dream in tatters

The article argues that Harry's own actions have fuelled many of the difficulties he now faces. It says that despite campaigning for personal privacy, he has revealed more about himself through television interviews, his Netflix series and his memoir Spare than newspapers ever exposed.

Among the memoir's most talked-about disclosures was Harry's account of suffering frostbite, which became one of its defining headlines. The article contends that these personal revelations weakened his long-running privacy campaign.

Harry's legal fight also drew several high-profile figures into the case. The article notes that Doreen Lawrence, Elton John and Simon Hughes became associated with the proceedings, placing them alongside Harry in litigation that ultimately failed.

Mr Justice Nicklin's 436-page judgment concluded that inference and hearsay were insufficient and that hard evidence was required to support the allegations. According to the article, the case was significantly weakened after key witness Gavin Burrows withdrew earlier claims that he had been paid to hack celebrity phones more than two decades ago.

The article suggests Harry or his legal advisers should have recognised the challenge of taking on a national newspaper with substantial legal resources. It argues the Daily Mail could not afford to lose such a high-profile case and fought it relentlessly.

Following the judgment, former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre reportedly celebrated the outcome as the newspaper devoted extensive coverage to the victory. The article says the ruling could also push wider press regulation efforts further into the background.

Attention is now turning to the financial consequences. A hearing scheduled for 29 July will consider reported legal costs of around £50 million, a figure the article says would be far beyond Harry's means alone and could also have serious financial implications for others connected to the case, including Elton John, Doreen Lawrence and Simon Hughes.

The article notes that Dacre was said to have been particularly disappointed by Lawrence's involvement because the Daily Mail had strongly supported the Lawrence family following the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

Although there was discussion of a possible appeal, the article argues that overturning the judgment would be difficult after the judge dismissed all 97 allegations against the newspaper.

The article also questions whether King Charles would provide financial assistance if legal costs become payable. It contrasts the situation with the late Queen's reported financial support for Prince Andrew following the Virginia Giuffre case, while suggesting such help for Harry appears unlikely.

The article also highlights Harry's reported decision not to stay in one of Buckingham Palace's 52 state bedrooms during his visit, suggesting the move is unlikely to attract widespread understanding.

Looking ahead, the article paints a bleak picture of Harry's future in California. It suggests his wife Meghan and their children, Archie and Lilibet, may not return to Britain for some time, while speculating that the children could eventually visit as students many years from now.

After losing to the Mail, Prince Harry seems doomed to a sad life in California and he did it to himself

He's on the hook for massive legal fees now.

Rachel better start flogging some more flower sprinkles and jam fruit spread. That stuff expires and there are warehouses full of it. 😄

‘Think she ordered too much’: Meghan Markle fans baffled as website blunder exposes stock numbers for As Ever products | Sky News Australia

When that fails, they'll be merching those poor kids. Exclusive pics on People magazine coming soon.